The Reliability of the Injured Party and the Defendant's Role in Contrasting Versions: Clarifications by the Court of Cassation with Judgment 32034 of 2025

In the complex and delicate universe of criminal proceedings, the testimony of the injured party holds a position of primary importance, often constituting the main source of evidence. Therefore, its reliability is subject to scrupulous and rigorous evaluation by the judge. On this crucial issue, the Court of Cassation, with Judgment No. 32034, filed on September 26, 2025, has provided an important clarification, delimiting the boundaries of what can be considered an "effective contrast" between the versions of events provided by the defendant and the injured party.

The Testimony of the Injured Party and Its Value

The injured party is a privileged witness, but their statements must be subjected to careful and critical scrutiny. The judge must conduct an overall assessment, examining the subjective credibility and objective reliability of their assertions. This process is fundamental for the formation of the judge's free conviction, as stipulated by Article 192 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The complexity increases when the versions of events provided by the injured party and the defendant diverge. The judge is called upon to resolve the contrast. But what is meant by "effective contrast"? Is a mere objection by the defense sufficient, or is a personal statement by the defendant required?

The Principle of the Defendant's Personal Statement

It is precisely on this specific point that the Supreme Court, with the ruling in question, intervenes with great clarity. Judgment 32034/2025, drafted by Counselor A. M. A., addresses the case of a defendant, G. P., whose lawyer had presented a version of events contrasting with that of the injured party.

The Court of Cassation has established a fundamental principle that reinforces the centrality of the defendant's direct statements in the evaluation process. Let's look at the full ruling:

For the purpose of forming the judge's free conviction, an effective contrast between the versions provided by the defendant and the injured party, subject to judicial evaluation also for the purpose of verifying the latter's reliability, exists only in cases where it was the defendant personally who provided, in their own procedural or trial settings, the contrasting reconstruction of events, a mere presentation by their lawyer not being sufficient for this purpose.

This passage is of extreme importance. The Court of Cassation emphasizes that to speak of an "effective contrast" between the versions, useful for questioning the reliability of the injured party, it is not enough for the defendant's lawyer to present an alternative version. It is essential that the defendant themselves has provided such a contrasting reconstruction, and that they have done so personally, in the settings and ways provided by law (for example, during an interrogation or spontaneous declarations). This distinction is crucial: the lawyer's arguments are an expression of the procedural strategy, while the defendant's personal statements are an expression of their direct perception and reconstruction of events, upon which the judge can base their evaluation.

Practical Consequences of the Ruling

This ruling follows an already established jurisprudential line, as recalled by previous rulings (No. 42920 of 2019 and No. 20884 of 2017). The practical implications are significant:

• Clarity for judges: A uniform criterion for distinguishing between a formal and a substantial contrast.
• Defendant's responsibility: The defendant who intends to contest the injured party's version must do so actively.
• Limits of the defense: The mere denial or presentation of an alternative version by the lawyer is not sufficient to automatically undermine the injured party's reliability, in the absence of personal statements from the defendant.

This orientation is consistent with the principle of the judge's free conviction, which must be based on concrete and verifiable elements, not on mere hypotheses or procedural strategies not supported by a direct account of the facts.

Conclusions

Judgment 32034 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation represents a firm point in the evaluation of testimonial evidence in criminal proceedings. It reiterates the importance of the injured party's testimony and clarifies the conditions for an effective contrast with the defendant's version. For a lawyer, understanding this distinction is fundamental for establishing an effective defense. For the citizen, it is confirmation that justice requires active and transparent engagement in reconstructing the truth, valuing direct and personal statements over mere defense arguments.